If? So you can't prove anything and are just making stuff up to look intelligent. Since we don't know what low level clouds were doing for a large part of earths history and have no way of knowing you can just say they were whatever you want them to be.

Look I don't claim to be an amateur climatologist but I'm not an elected Representative from North Carolina so I ain't fooled that easily. I KNOW there is no way you could be right unless the plot from sunshine is science fact rather then science fiction.

That's my point, genius.

If CERN confirms that the link is strong between GCRs and Clouds then it would be more likely that a significant decrease in cloud cover over the 20th Century has likely occured.

Prove that the sun has not had a significant influence on climate change over the 20th Century, instead of throwing out baseless assumptions.

Ah calling me a genius. I think your being sarcastic I don't think the same thing you think so I must be thick that's the point. Isn't you that has a hissy fit and crys to the moderators if you aren't shown due respect?

I am asking you the question; show me the mechanism; you basically admit that it has not been demonstrated yet but if I wait this CERN might confirm it. You then ask me to prove a negative. and throw in an attempt at sarcasm.

This conversation does not seem very productive.

But its fun! Its like getting headshots playing call of duty the only frustrating thing is the noob doesn't know he's been shot.

Snowy123 wrote:

Your first and last paragraphs are not necessary.

The mechanism has been proven, and both the co2 mechanism and the cosmic ray mechanism have been proven to have an impact. It is just a question of which one is stronger than the other.

Not really, as we have a lot of references on the strength of the CO2 forcing and none on the cosmic rays, in fact the cosmic rays seem to just be a slight multiplier given your evidence.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

No, they would not be lost in anything if they were, in fact, drivers. Volcanic eruptions are localized events, yet they impact the climate around the world. You are supporting one hypothesis and condemning another based solely on your personal beliefs and nothing else. There is no supporting evidence for the mechanisms and the hypotheses have garnered little interest from those who are experts in the fields. It is the experts you usually can give the best determination of the validity of an hypothesis.

Funny that you mention volcanoes.

The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo confirmed negative feedback in the climate system, making it unlikely that CO2 was the dominant cause of the 20th Century warming, since it would be too small to explain it, and thus another factor is needed to explain the warming.

We determine the volcano climate sensitivity l andresponse time t for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, usingobservational measurements of the temperature anomaliesof the lower troposphere, measurements of the longwave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density.Using standard linear response theory we find l = 0.15 ±0.06 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of1.4 (+0.7, 1.6). The intrinsic response time is t = 6.8 ±1.5 months. Both results are contrary to a paradigm thatinvolves long response times and positive feedback.

That is how science progresses actually, through falsification and through Paradigm shifts.

No, the only thing one can use in the support of a negative proof is lack of a positive negation. Eventually sufficient lack of negation is evidence of the negative. The falsification would be positive evidence to counter a negative claim or lack of evidence for a connected positive claim.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Rather odd the chart in the paper also shows the measurements from the neutron monitors which are still in use rather than the ionization chambers which which stopped in the early 1990s. The neutron monitors do not show the same massive drop as the chambers.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

No, they would not be lost in anything if they were, in fact, drivers. Volcanic eruptions are localized events, yet they impact the climate around the world. You are supporting one hypothesis and condemning another based solely on your personal beliefs and nothing else. There is no supporting evidence for the mechanisms and the hypotheses have garnered little interest from those who are experts in the fields. It is the experts you usually can give the best determination of the validity of an hypothesis.

Funny that you mention volcanoes.

The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo confirmed negative feedback in the climate system, making it unlikely that CO2 was the dominant cause of the 20th Century warming, since it would be too small to explain it, and thus another factor is needed to explain the warming.

We determine the volcano climate sensitivity l andresponse time t for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, usingobservational measurements of the temperature anomaliesof the lower troposphere, measurements of the longwave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density.Using standard linear response theory we find l = 0.15 ±0.06 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of1.4 (+0.7, 1.6). The intrinsic response time is t = 6.8 ±1.5 months. Both results are contrary to a paradigm thatinvolves long response times and positive feedback.

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give riseto small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that differentmechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, apossibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans asa calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat fluxinto the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records overthe 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records canbe used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiativeforcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than justthose associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplificationmechanism, though without pointing to which one.

Rather odd the chart in the paper also shows the measurements from the neutron monitors which are still in use rather than the ionization chambers which which stopped in the early 1990s. The neutron monitors do not show the same massive drop as the chambers.

The neutron monitors also show a significant decline in GCR counts in 1992, it is just not a yearly value of GCRs as it is shown with the ion chambers.

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give riseto small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that differentmechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, apossibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans asa calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat fluxinto the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records overthe 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records canbe used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiativeforcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than justthose associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplificationmechanism, though without pointing to which one.

Now show us the evidence of the mechanism for that cause. Remember correllation is not causation no matter how hard you want to believe it.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein